Debate on Curricular Mandates Marks Drug-Bill Vote

Washington--After a heated debate over the federal government's role
in curricular matters, the House Education and Labor Committee decided
to follow the Senate's lead and voted to require schools to have
anti-drug programs and policies as a prerequisite to receiving federal
funds.

The bill, which is expected to pass the full House this week, would
also direct more drug-education money to poorer districts and encourage
states to pass legislation creating drug-free school zones.

Some committee members criticized the measure, which was adopted by
a vote of 32 to 3, as improperly allowing the federal government to
dictate curriculum to local districts.

Under the bill, schools that do not certify to state officials by
Oct. 1, 1990, that they have anti-drug education programs and policies
could lose all federal funding. The Secretary of Education is permitted
to grant exemptions until April 1, 1991.

Earlier this month, the House adopted a bill that would boost
spending on drug education by $183.5 million. In October, the Senate
agreed to increase drug-education funding by the same amount.

In September, the Senate voted to amend the Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act of 1986 to require schools to implement tough anti-drug
policies and comprehensive drug-education programs as a prerequisite to
receiving federal funds. The Senate passed a slightly weaker version of
this requirement, in a second drug bill, in October. (See Education
Week, Oct. 11, 1989.)

Congressional aides said they did not know whether the two chambers
would begin conference negotiations on the measures before Nov. 20,
when the Congress is scheduled to recess until January.

The initial version of the House bill, which was introduced by the
committee's chairman, Augustus F. Hawkins, Democrat of
California,el10ldid not require schools to have anti-drug policies as a
prerequisite to receiving federal money.

But at last week's hearing, Representative William F. Goodling of
Pennsylvania, the committee's ranking Republican member, offered an
amendment containing language almost identical to the provisions in the
weaker Senate bill.

The amendment would require schools to have "age-appropriate,
developmentally based drug and alcohol education and prevention
programs" to receive federal aid.

Critics of the amendment argued that it would force the Secretary of
Education to decide which local curricula were acceptable and which
were not.

Such an approach, they said, would violate statutes that prohibit
the federal government from dictating local curricula.

"I'm not yet ready, Mr. Chairman, to go back on the commitment we
made as part of a quid pro quo to get the federal government into the
education business," said Representative Pat Williams, Democrat of
Montana. "We guaranteed that local control of schools at the state and
local level would be preserved."

"It seems to me," he added, "that this is a fairly dangerous
precedent, this 'Big Brother is watching you' amendment."

Other members said they were uncomfortable with the provision
because it would cause schools to lose all federal funds, not just
drug-education money, if they did not comply.

Supporters of the provision said they did not interpret the
amendment's language as mandating a federal curriculum.

The provision was adopted after it was amended to prohibit a federal
role in curriculum development.

Committee aides said the amendment was not intended to weaken the
drug-education and policy requirement. But some acknowledged that,
because the language of the provision and the amendment were
potentially contradictory, the Education Department's ability to
enforce the policy could be limited.

The committee's bill would also alter the funding formula of the
drug-free schools law to give a greater share to states that have
larger Chapter 1 enrollments. States would also be encouraged to create
drug-free school zones within two years of the law's passage.

In addition, the bill would allow smaller districts to pool their
anti-drug aid; encourage schools to hire drug counselors; allow schools
to combine the money they receive from several federal programs for
anti-drug activities; and ensure that private schools receive their
share of funds when local public schools do not apply to state
authorities for funding.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.